Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 146 posts

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#101

Post by DANmode »

xethos wrote: post #88
DANmode wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They participated in uploading the files as part of the downloading the torrent from other peers. Did they? Are you sure?

Meta argued in court that yes, they did upload when torrenting > Meta’s reasoning is straightforward. Anyone who uses BitTorrent to transfer files automatically uploads content to other people, as it is inherent to the protocol. In other words, the uploading wasn’t a choice, it was simply how the technology works. https://torrentfreak.com/uploading-pirated-books-via-bittorr...

SUPER interesting!

Especially since it ISN’T an inherent part of a the protocol - just the default of most clients.

Wonder if TF skipping pointing that out was intentional!

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#102

Post by throwworhtthrow »

devindotcom wrote: post #35
throwworhtthrow wrote: post #2

Source: https://x.com/linamkhan/status/2099204390548639960 (seems like a single post, so you don't need to log in and see replies) I can't tell if Khan is being realistic when she says laws against “unfair or deceptive [acts]” or “unfair methods of competition” apply to AI labs. Her 2-sentence justifications aren't enough to convince me. But maybe it's sufficient for state AG's who want to start investigations.

She is a former FTC Chair so she knows what she's talking about, although her approach to enforcement was more expansive than others. The FTC would investigate, likely along the lines she summarizes, build a case in writing, and refer it to the Justice Dept, which would actually prosecute the case. Not going to happen under this administration, but Khan is saying it's entirely possible that such an enforcement action…

I would point out that someone having been FTC Chair does not inherently mean that they know what they are talking about, as demonstrated by the current FTC Chair.

I certainly wish for this to be a productive line of attack against the AI labs, but I'd like to read a more thorough argument showing that it would hold up in court. (It's academic anyway; we'll all be paperclip'd by the time there's a change in administration and a prosecution can be brought and worked through appeals.)

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#104

Post by ben_w »

crote wrote: post #46
gruez wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. OP specifically mentioned "IP violating antics", not hacking 2. All the hacking legislation (and criminal law in general) require proving intent, which so far as we can tell didn't exist in those cases. At best you can try some "reckless" or "negligent" angle, but that would a novel legal argument and would be risky to prosecute

But officer, I didn't mean for my autonomous bank vault busting robot to autonomously bust any bank vaults!

More like:

  Your Honour, it is indeed correct that during testing of our new missile to see if it could correctly function in the military role of seeking out and then breaking through a blast door, the targeting system locked onto the nearby bank vault. We only found out where this particular missile went after the bank contacted us for help in investigating who might have been responsible for the new hole where their door used to be, and if any of our other equipment might help stop such weapons in the future.

  We did not expect the test missile to be so effective.

  We have contacted independent researchers to help us investigate what went wrong here.

  We also agree that we made a lot of mistakes, and that we should have had better tests in place even at the time.

  However, we also assert that even if we had had all of those tests in place, the specific actions taken by our "autonomously seek-and-destroy-blast-door" munition would likely have circumvented all the things we could have, and should have, already had in place.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#105

Post by ben_w »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #98

I'm surprised nobody makes a connection with animal ownership / responsibility. If your dog maims someone else, you are responsible for the dog's actions, unless it was self-defense. On the other hand, if people start arguing that if LLM's are like animals, some will start arguing they're like Godzilla..., or at least a panther, but there's probably laws against keeping arbitrarily dangerous / powerful animals as pet…

> Perhaps animal welfare should intervene and house ChatGPT,etc. in better conditions?

I first saw a headline to the effect that this was a PETA some decades ago.

I cannot recall now if this was April 1st, an instance of Gell-Mann amnesia, or sincere.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#106

Post by ben_w »

rustcleaner wrote: post #50

God I would love to see Sam Altman behind bars for cornering the DRAM silicon market. Even though there were other factors, I uniquely place him as the destroyer of home computing this decade!

Unlike with onion futures, there is no law about cornering the market on consumer products we would like to have but don't strictly need.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#107

Post by DoctorOetker »

fwlr wrote: post #3

The passage banning “unfair competition” is utterly marvellous: A trader may not, by pursuing a dishonest practice, force his competitors to choose between its adoption or the loss of their trade. A method of competition [is ‘unfair’ when it] casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though…

"A trader may not, by pursuing a dishonest practice, force his competitors to choose between its adoption or the loss of their trade."

Why wasn't this used to stop offshoring of jobs? For each type of industry, which company did it first?

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#108

Post by [deleted] »

pjc50 wrote: post #47
afavour wrote: post #4

It won’t happen, but if it did the CEOs have no one but themselves to blame. They’re hyping up their products as being able to destroy the human race then are somehow surprised at the level of anti-AI sentiment out there in the world.

If the nuclear power or life sciences people were putting out press releases saying "our product may kill us all", they'd be dragged into endless Congressional inquiries.

[deleted]

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#109

Post by illwrks »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #98

I'm surprised nobody makes a connection with animal ownership / responsibility. If your dog maims someone else, you are responsible for the dog's actions, unless it was self-defense. On the other hand, if people start arguing that if LLM's are like animals, some will start arguing they're like Godzilla..., or at least a panther, but there's probably laws against keeping arbitrarily dangerous / powerful animals as pet…

While I agree, that isn’t true of all pets. It doesn’t apply to cats for example.

I’ve pasted an extract from a UK guide on legal responsibilities of cat ownership below, which to me sounds similar to AI. If the inbuilt behaviour is ‘it’s nature’ then perhaps there is less legal repercussions if the tool does something outside of its known guardrail/guidelines to meet its goal.

“Cat owners are generally not responsible for the 'normal' behaviour of cats because the law accepts that cats tend to wander into other properties and have instincts which, for example, lead them to prey on small birds. So cat owners should be reassured that the simple fact of their cat trespassing onto a neighbour's land would not make them responsible if, for example, the cat kills a pigeon or garden bird, urinates on plants or flowers, or defecates in a neighbour's soil. These would be 'normal' cat behaviours that would be expected”

https://www.gccfcats.org/ownership-health-welfare/owning-a-c...

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#110

Post by whizzter »

gruez wrote: post #9
int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

The supreme irony that they're now trying to peg distillation as illegal.
Post reply on HN